Manuel Bouyer wrote
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:08:02PM +0930, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > True, but...
> > 
> > Are there any reasons why the second digit isn't used? In this
> > case ttyff would become port 256, more than enough to build a fancy
> > terminal server.
> > 
> > To my knowledge, there are no definitions for ttyaX, ttybX, ttycX,
> > ttydX, ttyeX and ttyfX (X being a numerical value).
> > 
> > So why not defining serial ports in the range of tty[0..f][0..f]?
> 
> I think we should avoid letters for true serial ports, letters have been
> used for various pseudo-tty already (ttyp0, ttyv0, ttyE0, I think we
> also have ttyC0 around).

We are already using hexadecimals for pseudo-tty e.g.
...ttyqa, ttyqb, ttyqc..., 

I simply can't see any reason why it should be different for reall 
serial devices... We support the cyclades multi-serial port cards with
up to 64 ports... 4 cards will give 256 serial ports and personally
I would hate to see the highest port being called tty0255... ;-)

cheerio Berndt
-- 
Name    : Berndt Josef Wulf            | +++ With BSD on Packet Radio +++
E-Mail  : wulf@ping.net.au             |    tfkiss, tnt, dpbox, wampes
ICQ     : 18196098                     |  VK5ABN, Nairne, South Australia 
URL     : http://www.ping.net.au/~wulf | MBOX : vk5abn@vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.au.oc
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.4.2  | BBS  : vk5abn.#lmr.#sa.aus.oc